Traffic Calming Liability Issues - Institute of Transportation Engineers

More documents

Recommendations

Info

claims arising from street design and maintenance generally, have made Seattle hyper-sensitive to the potential for liability in its traffic calming program. Going out with the manager of the traffic calming program to photograph traffic calming measures, we came across a choker "landscaped" with some medium-sized rocks. The rocks, placed there by neighbors responsible for landscape maintenance, were apparently intended to protect the landscaping from errant vehicles. Aware of a large damage award over rocks in a highway median, the manager declared that the "foreign objects" would be removed from the island post haste, and they were. Wherever landscape maintenance is left to neighbors, this kind of overzealous protection of landscaping may result. Two other featured communities have had to pay multiple claims. Ft. Lauderdale’s claims have involved wheel damage sustained by cars striking a choker on a high-volume collector street. This choker poses a particular threat because it has a vertical monument on one side of the street and, until recently, nothing on the other side (due to a fronting property owner’s objection). The number of claims and apparent design flaw caused the city’s risk manager to take a public stand against the installation. The city traffic engineer responded by planting a tree on the problem side, giving it some vertical definition as well. Montgomery County has paid two claims involving speed humps. In one case, the driver of a community college van went over a hump at a speed acknowledged to be too high, and a student was injured. Though not at fault, the county agreed to pay $2,500 in medical expenses to avoid the expense of litigation. In the other case, hump markings came off on the undercarriage of a car that bottomed out traveling too fast. Because the hump markings had been improperly applied, the county assumed liability for $300 in damages associated with removal of tape and glue. Problem Choker Before and After (Ft. Lauderdale, FL) 14
1. A survey of 407 urban traffic agencies found legal liability to be their greatest concern about use of speed humps. Yet, among the dozens of agencies using speed humps at that time, only one had ever paid a damage claim, and this for only $2,500. ITE Technical Council Committee 5B-15, "Road Bumps - Appropriate for Use on Public Streets," ITE Journal, Vol. 56, November 1986, pp. 18-21. 2. A review of case law conducted for the state of Washington came up with nothing except the old Berkeley case. J.P. Savage, R.D. MacDonald, and J. Ewell, A Guidebook for Residential Traffic Management, Washington Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA, 1994. 3. Director General of Transport for South Australia, Residential Street Management Manual, Adelaide, 1987; Institution of Highways and Transportation, Roads and Traffic in Urban Areas, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, London, 1987, pp. ; AUSTROADS, Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice - Part 10 - Local Area Traffic Management, Sidney, 1988; Main Roads Department - Western Australia, Guidelines of Local Area Traffic Management, East Perth, 1990; Committee MS/12, Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices - Part 13: Local Area Traffic Management, Standards Association of Australia, Sidney, 1991; J. Marstrand et al., Urban Traffic Areas - Part 7: Speed Reducers, Vejdirektoratet - Vejregeludvalget, The Netherlands, 1991; Kent County Council, Traffic Calming - A Code of Practice, Maidstone, Great Britain, 1992; Delcan/Urban Systems, Guide to Neighbourhood Traffic Calming, Transportation Association of Canada/Canadian Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1998. 4. In an early legal analysis of traffic controls, "reasonableness" in the exercise of police powers was linked to: Ä Evidence of Need for Action - Harm to Residents Ä Alternative Traffic Control Measures, Attempted or Considered Ä Relationship to an Overall Transportation Plan Ä Reasonable Access for Emergency Vehicles Ä Conduct of Public Hearings D.T. Smith and D. Appleyard, Improving the Residential Street Environment, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 1981, pp. 132-133. 5. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, Washington, D.C., 1988, p.1A-1. 6. A government body may be held liable only if its study of a traffic condition is plainly inadequate or there is no reasonable basis for its traffic plan. Redcross v. State of New York, 660 N.Y.S.2d 211. 7. The distinction between humps and bumps is elaborated on in H.S. Chadda and S.E. Cross, "Speed (Road) Bumps: Issues and Opinions," Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 111, 1985, pp. 410-418. Also see ITE Technical Council Task Force on Speed Humps, op. cit.; and 15
Page 1 and 2: Traffic Calming Liability Issues Re
Page 3 and 4: Gainesville opposition from city at
Page 5 and 6: &LWL]HQÃ UHTXHVWÃ Is traffic calm
Page 7 and 8: Challenge to Humps and Tables—Sar
Page 9 and 10: another, or to design measures for
Page 11 and 12: Commercial Access—Seattle There h
Page 13: everyone. As the court saw it: "...

Traffic Calming Liability Issues - Institute of Transportation Engineers

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?